The CNN-USA Today Gallup poll asked the public, do you want a new Supreme Court justice to be someone who would vote to uphold Roe v. Wade -- the decision that legalized abortion -- or someone who would vote to overturn it?

By better than two to one, Americans prefer a Supreme Court nominee who would vote to uphold Roe v. Wade -- and continue to give constitutional protection to abortion rights.

Even Republicans are divided on the issue. Nearly half want a justice who would uphold abortion rights.

A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 56 percent of respondents nationwide favored keeping abortion legal in all or most cases. The survey of 1,082 adults, conducted in April 2005, showed that only 14 percent of those surveyed wanted to keep abortion illegal in all cases, with another 27 percent wanting most cases to be illegal.

Voters donâ€™t want the government and politicians involved in their choice about abortion. In a recent survey by The Mellman Group, 62 percent of respondents felt the government should not interfere with a womanâ€™s access to abortion. Only 33 percent believe the government should restrict access.

But what about the Supreme Court specifically, and its stance on Roe v. Wade?

Nearly 60 percent of Americans say that, if presented with an opportunity to appoint one or more new justices to the Supreme Court, President Bush should pick individuals who would uphold Roe.

The Associated Press/Ipsos-Public Affairs Poll, which surveyed a national sample of 1,000 adults last November, found that only three in 10 respondents (31 percent) favored nominating justices who would overturn Roe.

It's a fairly sure bet that the wingnuts won't like that. But reality never stopped them before. They're certain to start whining again about a potential filibuster. The only problem is that the people want a robust confirmation process:

Three-quarters of the respondents in a poll of 1,000 likely voters said that the Senate should examine each of the presidentâ€™s nominees carefully and make its own independent judgment. Only 24 percent thought that the Senate should just confirm whomever Bush puts forward.

In fact, maybe this is a good time to note that most people are against the radical conservatives' efforts to take away birth control from women:

When the debate expands beyond abortion, voters show overwhelming support for a number of issues impacting womenâ€™s reproductive rights, family planning and prevention of unintended pregnancies. Voters recently surveyed by Planned Parenthood Federation of America overwhelmingly (78 percent) favor requirements that schools teach sex education, and 79 percent favor access to emergency contraception (EC) for rape and incest victims.

A large majority (65 percent) favors EC for all women, and 66 percent said that health-insurance policies should cover contraceptives. Respondents further showed strong support (67 percent) for a law making it clear that contraception does not constitute abortion and should not be regulated by abortion legislation. Furthermore, in the recent debate over pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions, only 40 percent of those surveyed agreed that pharmacists should be allowed to do so.

Now a lot of radical agitators will try to claim that the Republicans won the last election, and that means the people support their extremely radical views to take away women's control over their own bodies. But in fact, this past November people were not voting on the abortion issue:

In the months since November 2004, a host of commentators insisted that abortion had a negative impact on the election; some even blamed Democratic candidate John Kerryâ€™s loss on his support for abortion rights.

However, data collected by Lake Snell Perry & Associates for the nonpartisan network Votes for Women 2004 shows that the election issues about which voters most cared were the economy (23 percent), national security and terrorism (19 percent), and the war in Iraq (13 percent).

When voters were asked what made them decide their presidential choice, only 2 percent volunteered the issue of abortion. Among Kerry voters, less than 1 percent offered this as an issue. Among Bush voters, only 2 percent said abortion determined their vote for president.

The radical conservatives like to bellow and crow about "the will of the people," but here it's quite obvious that they are out of step with the American people. Will they listen? Undoubtedly, the Republicans will do all they can to appease the radical pseudo-Christian special interests who ultimately want a Christian theocracy (like Iran, only without the Koran).

Comments

Watching coverage of Sandra's announced retirement on the likes of Fox News and CNN today, I had an epiphany.

Good, thoughtful republicans and democrats DO exist. But, since the "masses" have entered into politics, the political game has turned in to a sports match where people root for their "team," and act like drunk fans at a soccer match.

A "person" announces he disagrees with one of President Bush's policies:

Immediate response Iâ€™d expect from many Democrats I know: They want to take women's rights away

I wish all of you idiot liberals, and idiot conservatives who have entered the political process because Bill Clinton got a blow job would just leave. You are ruining this country. You take sides. You believe that you're either with us, or against us. You're arrogant and ignorant, but you've educated yourselves enough that you think you're smart and informed. I've got news for you... you're not.

I guarantee that the battle over filling Sandra's spot will be a bloody one (politically speaking). We're sparking revolutions throughout the world as it is, and I guarantee that this battle will cause a revolution of sorts in the United States. President Bush will nominate a conservative activist (you know, one of those people who are naive enough to think that our forefathers actually thought they were smart enough to write a document that need not be analyzed and questioned 200 years in the future). Democrats will filibuster (that's their answer to everything), and the "nuclear" option will be enacted. A conservative judge will get through, and all HELL will break loose.

Democrats won't stand for a Scalia type activist on the bench, nor should they. Putting a Scalia type person WILL send every day Democrats to the streets in protest, and will send Hillary to the Whitehouse in 2008 (at which point Iâ€™ll have to vomit).

Bottom line... you wanna be "intellectuals" with your sarcastic yet uninspired wit, jingoist attitudes, and "I SUPPORT OUR TROOPS" mentality (who don't ACTUALLY support our troops with real action) should stop voting, and should leave the process. These vote or die drives are big mistakes, because they convince idiots to take up arms and form opinions that allow no room for honest questions and principled debates.

By the way, if you REALLY want to support our troops, volunteer for the military so they can come home. Or â€“ give money to charities that help them until it HURTS. Theyâ€™ve made huge sacrifices for us, yet weâ€™ve made NONE for them.

I have a different theory, which is that the political dialogue has been skewed into irrelevancies where we all are encouraged to fight over things that deep down we don't disagree on, while the real shit is going down behind our backs.

Who wants a war founded on a lie?

Who wants women enslaved as state-owned breeders?

Who wants the government to be able to grab anyone's home for development?

No, we're supposed to quibble over how many crumbs we get through Social Security. We're supposed to get all upset over whether Jim and Bob can make a lifetime commitment recognized by law. We're supposed to get upset over whether afterbirth is used for medical research.

Spare me the noble moderate cry of victim. I am not a Democrat. I vote on values. Sometimes that led me to Republicans -- but the GOP has gotten so radical over the past 20 years, I just cannot in good conscience vote for the ilk that tries to pass itself off as conservative.

And sometimes I've voted Democrat. Probably more often, because (as Bill Maher so accurately noted) the Demoracts have sold out to people just slightly less scary than the people the Republicans have sold out to.

But when it comes down to equal rights, there is no compromise. Either this is America, the leader of justice and equality in the world, or it's just another ex-colony with aspirations for empire.

The problem isn't the people, Scott. It's the media, it's the culture dominated by corporate entertainment, it's a society where the rulers and those they supposedly represent have little in common. I say we need even more participation of the people. We need more of the grassroots and less of the treetops. You can pine away for the good ol' days of smoke-filled rooms. Me, I prefer something resembling democracy, and without the people, that doesn't happen.

so we have to do the best we can in a bad situation. Both parties are owned by the same corporations and all of our "elected representatives" are wealthy, mostly white people. They have no clue what life is like for regular people.

The best thing we have going for us is our number. When we get vocal, it scares the shit out of sponsors, which puts fear in the media. We need to be LOUD in this process. We need to do some massive emailing, calling, protesting, etc.

If Shrub pushes too far right, this will end him. Most of the country already favors impeachment. His approval rating is in the toilet. All he needs to do is try and appoint some Grand Inquisitor, and people will take him down.